Deeper than primes - Continuation

realpaladin · Mar 7, 2012

keyfeatures said:
Thanks for the reply.

But what is the point of maths that does not, or cannot, describe / relate to physical reality? To me, infinite integers are faith-think without evidence of infinite physical reality.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but be aware that it is nought more than that; your opinion.

There is no 'point of math' in itself. Just as a hammer has no point of being a hammer without a nail.

Math is but a tool and that tool has been refined very much.

As soon as you are using it for a job, say describing physical reality, then you need to work within the constraints of physical reality.
And in physical reality we have boundaries that make infinity not necessary.

keyfeatures said:
If you use terms with no evidence they relate to something real you risk writing nonsense poems.

That, in itself, has been of value in both the world of art and even had practical use in the world of publishing for instance (Lorem Ipsem).

keyfeatures said:
Obviously at the level of counting etc. they have proved a useful communicative tool but in terms of a framework of reality I have my doubts.

You should have doubts about anyone who starts with a tool before he knows the job. Imagine a plumber coming into your house saying "I have got the socketwrench, where is the problem?" when all you want is a new cap on your drain.

This does not mean that the companies working on perfecting socketwrenches are doing nonsensical work. It simply means the people putting the tool before the job are doing nonsensical thinking.

keyfeatures said:
A man not distracted by sums stuck electricity and magnetism back together (not forgetting it was observer bias that separated them in the first place). My mind is far from being made up but this thread is providing valuable food for thought.

Anyway, I shall type less and read more.

Well, there is even a precursor thread where all the math is explained, re-explained etc...

But to stress again, math in itself is a tool, and just as a hammer, there are uses and abuses. Doron is in the category of people that wants to drive in a screw with a hammer. And then blame the hammer for it being difficult.

doronshadmi · Mar 7, 2012

zooterkin said:
Actually, Doron is equivocating. If we are dealing with integers, then there is nothing between 3 and 4. That does not mean that 3=4.

Worng, there is a difference, called 1, between 3 and 4, which is defiantly not NOthing.

In other words, you do not understand NOthing.

doronshadmi · Mar 7, 2012

realpaladin said:
Then he becomes all cross because he has a problem thinking about infinity in the context of integers.

realpaladin, once again, you can't get notions beyond context-dependent (cross-contexts is beyond your mind).

jsfisher · Mar 7, 2012

doronshadmi said:
Worng, there is a difference, called 1, between 3 and 4, which is defiantly not NOthing.

In other words, you do not understand NOthing.

Ah! Sweet equivocation. The secret pleasure of those who disregard definitions.

doronshadmi · Mar 7, 2012

realpaladin said:
mathematics does not deal with the universe.

It is the truth of your limited universe.

doronshadmi · Mar 7, 2012

realpaladin said:
Math is but a tool and that tool has been refined very much.

You still do not get the cross-contexts aspect of this tool.

realpaladin · Mar 7, 2012

doronshadmi said:
You can't get the cross-contexts aspect of this tool.

Your opinions do not matter. Neither does what you subjectively think about anyone.

What matters is your logic and reasoning, and both do not stack up. And that is not an opinion, but a demonstrated fact.

realpaladin · Mar 7, 2012

doronshadmi said:
Worng, there is a difference, called 1, between 3 and 4, which is defiantly not NOthing.

In other words, you do not understand NOthing.

He is from Barcelona...

doronshadmi · Mar 7, 2012

jsfisher said:
Ah! Sweet equivocation. The secret pleasure of those who disregard definitions.

Those who do not understand NOthing get this argument as equivocation.

Actually they can't get this argument because their definitions are based on verbal_symbolic-only skills.

doronshadmi · Mar 7, 2012

realpaladin said:
Your opinions do not matter. Neither does what you subjectively think about anyone.

What matters is your logic and reasoning, and both do not stack up. And that is not an opinion, but a demonstrated fact.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8088309&postcount=627 .

jsfisher · Mar 7, 2012

doronshadmi said:
Those who do not understand NOthing get this argument as equivocation.

Actually they can't get this argument because their definitions are based on verbal_symbolic-only skills.

Let us know when recess is over.

realpaladin · Mar 7, 2012

But Doron, here is an opportunity.... claim the million dollars from the Million Dollar Challenge.

I checked and according to the rules you are eligeble; you claim to be able to do something that can not be explained by current science.

So, I dare you to claim that prize.

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
I checked and according to the rules you are eligeble; you claim to be able to do something that can not be explained by current science.

So, I dare you to claim that prize.

Some examples:

The Unity among Ethics and Reasoning.

The existence of non-local numbers.

Definitions that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

The understanding that definitions are changeable, because they are defined only at the level of thoughts, which are naturally changeable.

The Unity beyond Polychotomy.

Direct awareness of the source of thoughts, which is not in itself a thought.

Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

The understanding of Entropy in terms of "host"\"hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces, which are associated by Unity.

The right understanding of the power of the continuum, which is stronger than the power of any given collection (including the collection of all infinitely many mathematical or physical spaces).

The understanding of Non-locality\Locality framework.

The right understanding of the term "mathematical branches".

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

The recess of Traditional Mathematics is not over as long as it is closed under fixed (verbal_symbolic\context-dependent)_only framework.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
But Doron, here is an opportunity.... claim the million dollars from the Million Dollar Challenge.

I checked and according to the rules you are eligeble; you claim to be able to do something that can not be explained by current science.

So, I dare you to claim that prize.

doronshadmi said:
Some examples:

The Unity among Ethics and Reasoning.

The existence of non-local numbers.

Definitions that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

The understanding that definitions are changeable, because they are defined only at the level of thoughts, which are naturally changeable.

The Unity beyond Polychotomy.

Direct awareness of the source of thoughts, which is not in itself a thought.

Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

The understanding of Entropy in terms of "host"\"hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces, which are associated by Unity.

The right understanding of the power of the continuum, which is stronger than the power of any given collection (including the collection of all infinitely many mathematical or physical spaces).

The understanding of Non-locality\Locality framework.

How is *that* a reply??? Go grab some coffee first and then read.

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
Go grab some coffee first and then read.

As long as your awareness is limited to the naturally changeable and subjective level of thoughts, you have no way to get the objective aspect of your awareness, which enables one's mind to be developed into Unity awareness, which is beyond subject\object Polychotomy.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
As long as your awareness is limited to the naturally changeable and subjective level of thoughts, you have no way to get the objective aspect of your awareness, which enables one's mind to directly be aware of the Unity beyond subject\object Polychotomy.

Grab the million dollars! I will double it! I say you can not.

Because it is all empty rethoric.

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
Grab the million dollars! I will double it! I say you can not.

Because it is all empty rethoric.

It is indeed empty rhetoric as long as your awareness is limited to the subjective level of thoughts, so?

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
It is indeed empty rhetoric as long as your awareness is limited to the subjective level of thoughts, so?

Avoiding the MDC? Why is that?

You do not have to deal with my limited awareness.
In fact, I will be completely out of the picture.

You can define what it is that you can do. You alone!

You can define the test, the JREF will only make sure you can not cheat. And because you do not need to cheat, it will be easy for you.

So... why the avoidance? Anything wrong?

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
You do not have to deal with my limited awareness.

You are right, only you can develop it.

realpaladin said:
In fact, I will be completely out of the picture.

Wrong, your awareness is simply limited to the subjective level of thoughts.

realpaladin said:
You can define what it is that you can do. You alone!

I am doing it right now, but it does not help you, unless you actually develop your awareness beyond the subjective level of thoughts.

realpaladin said:
You can define the test, the JREF will only make sure you can not cheat.

JREF methods and results' analysis are also limited only to the subjective level of thoughts, so?

realpaladin said:
So... why the avoidance? Anything wrong?

You have to ask yourself why do you avoid any development beyond the subjective level of thoughts?

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
You are right, only you can develop it.

Great. It's on the bucket-list.

realpaladin said:
In fact, I will be completely out of the picture.

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, your awareness is simply limited to the subjective level of thoughts.

Huh? That only means: 'You will not have to deal with me. Others are there.

doronshadmi said:
I am doing it right now, but it does not help you, unless you actually develop your awareness beyond the subjective level of thoughts.

Like the ghosts, orbs, bigfoot etc???

doronshadmi said:
JREF methods and results' analysis are also limited only to the subjective level of thoughts, so?

So, let me get this straight...

*ONLY* people that have this advanced awareness can benefit from this advanced awareness, but they can not *DO* anything that people without this advanced awareness can see, measure or identify?

Correct?

doronshadmi said:
You have to ask yourself why do you avoid any development beyond the subjective level of thoughts?

Because I am not up to it. Ignorance is bliss. And all that...

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
*ONLY* people that have this advanced awareness can benefit from this advanced awareness, but they can not *DO* anything that people without this advanced awareness can see, measure or identify?

People that are not limited only to the subjective level of thoughts can easily get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 .

realpaladin said:
Like the ghosts, orbs, bigfoot etc???

Like understanding http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 .

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 is understood as woo from the subjective level of thoughts.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
People that are not limited only to the subjective level of thoughts can easily get
---
The Unity among Ethics and Reasoning.

The existence of non-local numbers.

Definitions that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

The understanding that definitions are changeable, because they are defined only at the level of thoughts, which are naturally changeable.

The Unity beyond Polychotomy.

Direct awareness of the source of thoughts, which is not in itself a thought.

Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

The understanding of Entropy in terms of "host"\"hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces, which are associated by Unity.

The right understanding of the power of the continuum, which is stronger than the power of any given collection (including the collection of all infinitely many mathematical or physical spaces).

The understanding of Non-locality\Locality framework.

The right understanding of the term "mathematical branches".
--

Yes, but all others can not. Is that correct?

doronshadmi said:
Like understanding
---
The Unity among Ethics and Reasoning.

The existence of non-local numbers.

Definitions that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

The understanding that definitions are changeable, because they are defined only at the level of thoughts, which are naturally changeable.

The Unity beyond Polychotomy.

Direct awareness of the source of thoughts, which is not in itself a thought.

Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

The understanding of Entropy in terms of "host"\"hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces, which are associated by Unity.

The right understanding of the power of the continuum, which is stronger than the power of any given collection (including the collection of all infinitely many mathematical or physical spaces).

The understanding of Non-locality\Locality framework.

The right understanding of the term "mathematical branches".
---

So, *only* people that are not limited and who 'get it' (easily or otherwise) can do the quoted things. Yes?

keyfeatures · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
But to stress again, math in itself is a tool, and just as a hammer, there are uses and abuses. Doron is in the category of people that wants to drive in a screw with a hammer. And then blame the hammer for it being difficult.

Is maths a tool? Tools are designed for a specific purpose. Other purposes may be found. Maths is a language. Languages contain observer biases. Like all languages maths must therefore evolve from observer biases and contain observer biases. For example, zero had to be observed and conceptualised before the symbolic language of zero could be assigned to it mathematically. Zero was not contained inherently within the language of maths, it had to be 'discovered'.

Perhaps what Doron is trying to describe is a concept that is not easily described by current mathematical language? It is quite possible that someone could grasp a concept beyond current language limits. And communicating this is inevitably going to be tricky. Sort of like trying to describe a colour no one else has seen yet...

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

keyfeatures said:
Is maths a tool? Tools are designed for a specific purpose. Other purposes may be found. Maths is a language. Languages contain observer biases. Like all languages maths must therefore evolve from observer biases and contain observer biases. For example, zero had to be observed and conceptualised before the symbolic language of zero could be assigned to it mathematically. Zero was not contained inherently within the language of maths, it had to be 'discovered'.

Perhaps what Doron is trying to describe is a concept that is not easily described by current mathematical language? It is quite possible that someone could grasp a concept beyond current language limits. And communicating this is inevitably going to be tricky. Sort of like trying to describe a colour no one else has seen yet...

Traditional Mathematics does its best in order to exclude the mathematician's awareness as a significant factor of this science.

Yet, the notions of this science are currently limited to the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

Organic Mathematics is first of all a systematic way to develop the consistent communication among the researched, the researcher and the research methods, by develop the mathematician's awareness beyond the subjective level of thoughts.

By following this way, the Mathematical Science is developed beyond the Ethics\Reasoning current Polychotomy.

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
So, *only* people that are not limited and who 'get it' (easily or otherwise) can do the quoted things. Yes?

They are able to understand them, and may develop things that are based on this understanding.

You, currently, can't get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059485&postcount=481 .

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

keyfeatures said:
Is maths a tool?

Yes, it is a tool. It has been so from it's inception.

keyfeatures said:
Tools are designed for a specific purpose.

No, they *may* be designed for a specific purpose.

But take, for example, the humble stick. A tool even used by animals, but nonetheless a tool.

Or the ubiqutous rock. Otters, bears, humans, monkeys, dinosaurs, cows... all use the tool 'rock'. And all have different purposes for it.

keyfeatures said:
Other purposes may be found. Maths is a language. Languages contain observer biases.

How come you say Math is a language? Citations?

keyfeatures said:
Like all languages maths must therefore evolve from observer biases and contain observer biases.

We leave this until you can show that Maths *is* a language.

keyfeatures said:
For example, zero had to be observed and conceptualised before the symbolic language of zero could be assigned to it mathematically. Zero was not contained inherently within the language of maths, it had to be 'discovered'.

That is a common misconception. The language of zero has nothing to do with the concept of zero.

The concept of zero was employed *in maths* a long time before the language of zero came about.

The often made mistake here is that people think that zero needed to be discovered. But in fact in only was that 0 needed to get a place in the digits.
The usage of the value 0 is as old as maths itself.

keyfeatures said:
Perhaps what Doron is trying to describe is a concept that is not easily described by current mathematical language?

Well, duh... we have been trying to tell him that his understanding of maths is below par and that he should not try to use a hammer to drive in his screw.

keyfeatures said:
It is quite possible that someone could grasp a concept beyond current language limits.

And thereby be able to claim the million dollars. Which he even refuses to try.

keyfeatures said:
And communicating this is inevitably going to be tricky. Sort of like trying to describe a colour no one else has seen yet...

But the rules of the MDC state that he can even decide on what constitutes a succesfull test. Nobody else is going to tell him what to do and what not.

But he *hides* behind copy/paste, abuse, ramblings on how the hammer is not a good tool for his screw...(i.e. math is *wrong*).

But... why don't *you* ask him? Maths is not anything Doron is good at, but you seem of the idea that communicating may be the key.

Please, show me.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
They are able to understand them, and may develop things that are based on this understanding.

You, currently, can't get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059485&postcount=481 .

I do not *want* to get that. I could not even care less to get it.

What I want to get, little Doron, is what the properties of your 'whateveryoucallit' are that people who do *not* get it can see, experience, smell, measure...

If the answer is *nothing* because they 'don't get it', then fine.

If it is anything else, please tell us.

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
Yes, it is a tool. It has been so from it's inception.

No, they *may* be designed for a specific purpose.

But take, for example, the humble stick. A tool even used by animals, but nonetheless a tool.

Or the ubiqutous rock. Otters, bears, humans, monkeys, dinosaurs, cows... all use the tool 'rock'. And all have different purposes for it.

How come you say Math is a language? Citations?

We leave this until you can show that Maths *is* a language.

That is a common misconception. The language of zero has nothing to do with the concept of zero.

The concept of zero was employed *in maths* a long time before the language of zero came about.

The often made mistake here is that people think that zero needed to be discovered. But in fact in only was that 0 needed to get a place in the digits.
The usage of the value 0 is as old as maths itself.

Well, duh... we have been trying to tell him that his understanding of maths is below par and that he should not try to use a hammer to drive in his screw.

And thereby be able to claim the million dollars. Which he even refuses to try.

But the rules of the MDC state that he can even decide on what constitutes a succesfull test. Nobody else is going to tell him what to do and what not.

But he *hides* behind copy/paste, abuse, ramblings on how the hammer is not a good tool for his screw...(i.e. math is *wrong*).

But... why don't *you* ask him? Maths is not anything Doron is good at, but you seem of the idea that communicating may be the key.

Please, show me.

realpaladin can't understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091197&postcount=660 and the results of his misunderstanding.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
realpaladin can't understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091197&postcount=660 and the results of his misunderstanding.

Realpaladin could not care less. He cares about one simple answer to one simple question:

What can people who do not get it notice about OM or about people that do 'get it'?

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
I do not *want* to get that. I could not even care less to get it.

Fair enough, but then do not expect to understand any of its premises, conclusions, results, usefulness etc.

realpaladin said:
What I want to get, little Doron, is what the properties of your 'whateveryoucallit' are that people who do *not* get it can see, experience, smell, measure...

It depends on actual awareness' development, which you avoid, so at least, little realpaladin, find the answer by yourself, it has to be obvious according to your actual attitude of the considered subject.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
It depends on actual awareness' development, which you avoid, so at least, realpaladin, find the answer by yourself, it has to be obvious according to your actual view of the considered subject.

So, to reiterate:

There is NOTHING to see OR notice if your awareness' developmental level is not at the required level.

So for all intents and purposes it resembles an LSD trip; if you are not high on acid, you do not see *it*/If you don't 'get it' you 'don't get it'.

Excellent work Doron!

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
So, to reiterate:

There is NOTHING to see OR notice if your awareness' developmental level is not at the required level.

So for all intents and purposes it resembles an LSD trip; if you are not high on acid, you do not see *it*/If you don't 'get it' you 'don't get it'.

Excellent work Doron!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 is neutrally developed by the natural mind's abilities ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 ) without any need of indirect things like drugs etc.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 is neutrally developed by the natural mind's abilities ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 ) without any need of external materials.

It does not matter anymore.

No link, no wall of text, no quoting, absolutely nothing that you say or do will matter anymore in this thread.

All you have to show for is something that only people that 'get it' do 'get'.

So why would anyone who does not 'get it' give a hootenanny?

Right, they don't.

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
No link, no wall of text, no quoting, absolutely nothing that you say or do will matter anymore in this thread.

Unless one actually uses Organic Mathematics in order to develop awareness.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
Unless one actually uses Organic Mathematics in order to develop awareness.

By your own definition you can not USE it unless you GET IT.

So it is USE LESS.

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
It does not matter anymore.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 matters a lot.

realpaladin · Mar 8, 2012

doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 matters a lot.

To whom?

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
By your own definition you can not USE it unless you GET IT.

So it is USE LESS.

Every journey starts by the first step, which you refuse to take, so?

doronshadmi · Mar 8, 2012

realpaladin said:
To whom?

To those who actually do, at least, the first step.

Deeper than primes - Continuation

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Critical Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing